Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing what a result contains (title, authors, year, journal, DOI, citation count, abstract excerpt, link), though it omits rate limits or ranking caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short paragraphs with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the follow-up routing comes second. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing. The return-field list is arguably redundant against the output schema, but it is accurate and helpful rather than harmful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so query syntax, limit bounds and the year range filters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes `limit` ('up to `limit` papers') and adds no semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the NobleBlocks paper index by keyword relevance'), and the sibling tools are named with distinct roles. An agent can distinguish this from get_paper and get_citation without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_paper with a result's `id` for full metadata, or get_citation to cite it. This gives clear context for the follow-up path, though it never states when not to search (e.g. when the user already has a DOI).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.